Case law

Hines v. Miller

122 Cal. 517 · California Supreme Court · Nov 30, 1898

(Helm v. Chapman, 66 Cal. 291 ; Silvester v. Coe etc. Min. Co., 80 Cal. 512 .) … In Evans v.

Lyons v. Hoover

41 Cal. 2d 145 · California Supreme Court · Jun 12, 1953

(See McKeag v. Board of Pension Commrs., 21 Cal.2d 386, 390 [ 132 P.2d 198 ].) … (See Healy v. Industrial Acc. Com., ante, p. 118 [ 258 P.2d 1 ].)

Hambarian v. Superior Court

118 Cal. Rptr. 2d 725 · California Supreme Court · Jun 12, 2002

In People v. … On this point, we find persuasive the analysis of the federal district court in International Business Machines Corp. v. Brown (C.D.Cal. 1994) 857 F.Supp. 1384 .

Swamp-Land Reclamation Dist. No. 407 v. Wilcox

75 Cal. 443 · California Supreme Court · Mar 29, 1888

(Wayland v. Ware, 104 Mass. 46 ; Sprague v. Baily, 19 Pick. 436 .) … (People v. Empire G. & S. M.

Garmon v. San Diego Building Trades Council

49 Cal. 2d 595 · California Supreme Court · Jan 16, 1958

In determining the jurisdiction intended by Congress to vest in the National Labor Relations Board the Supreme Court stated in Garner v. Teamsters etc. … Union v.

Agard v. Shaffer

141 Cal. 725 · California Supreme Court · Jan 21, 1904

This is clearly pointed out in Dougherty v. Austin, 94 Cal. 601 , and Welsh v. Bramlet, 98 Cal. 222 , and the reasons fully given. The same principle was referred to in Tulare County v. … And if the power to do the one thing should not be delegated to the board of supervisors, then the power to do the other thing should not be so delegated. Respondent cites the case of Kirkwood v.

Pesce v. Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control

51 Cal. 2d 310 · California Supreme Court · Dec 12, 1958

(See People v. Slobodion, 30 Cal.2d 362 [ 181 P.2d 868 ] ; Manning v. Gavin, 14 Cal.2d 44, 46 [ 92 P.2d 795 ] ; Haskins v. Crumley, 152 Cal. App.2d 64, 66 [ 312 P.2d 276 ] ; Wilbur v. … As stated in Wilbur v. Cull, supra, at page 657, quoting from Anderson v.

Great Western P. Co. v. City of Oakland

189 Cal. 649 · California Supreme Court · Sep 22, 1922

Co. v. Roberts, 168 Cal. 551 [Ann. Cas. 1916E, 1196, 143 Pac. 786 ], and Southern Pacific Co. v. … Co. v. Roberts, supra, and Pullman Co. v.

Stoumen v. Reilly

37 Cal. 2d 713 · California Supreme Court · Aug 28, 1951

The findings and recommendation were adopted by the board as its decision. Thereafter the superior court denied a writ of mandate after reviewing the matter on the record before the board. (See Covert v. … (See Covert v. State Board of Equalization, 29 Cal.2d 125, 131-132 [ 173 P.2d 545 ].)

Hatch v. Ward

27 Cal. 2d 883 · California Supreme Court · Apr 4, 1946

As pointed out in Nelson v. … (See, e. g., Monahan v. Dept. of Water & Power (1941), 48 Cal.App.2d 746, 753 [ 120 P.2d 730 ]; Stohl v. Horstmann (1944), 64 Cal.App.2d 316, 323 [ 148 P.2d 697 ].)

Los Angeles County v. San José Land & Water Co.

96 Cal. 93 · California Supreme Court · Aug 30, 1892

In such suit, no informality in the proceedings of the board shall vitiate said suit, but the said order of the board, directing the district attorney to bring suit, shall be conclusive proof of the regularity thereof; and … (Bamrell v. B. S. San Joaquin County), p. 155, is not in point here.

Best v. State Bar

57 Cal. 2d 633 · California Supreme Court · May 15, 1962

Also, the burden is upon one seeking a review of a recommendation of the Board of Governors to show that its findings are not supported by the evidence or that its recommendation is erroneous or unlawful. (Rock v. … Mayer v. State Bar, 2 Cal.2d 71, 75 [3] [ 39 P.2d 206 ].) The penalty recommended by the Board of Governors—disbarment—is not excessive.

People v. Ricciardi

23 Cal. 2d 390 · California Supreme Court · Dec 21, 1943

Co., 122 Cal. 681 [ 55 P. 688 ]; Brown v. Board of Supervisors, 124 Cal. 274, 280 [ 57 P. 82 ]; Eachus v. City of Los Angeles, 130 Cal. 492 [ 62 P. 829 , 80 Am.St.Rep. 147 ]; Smith v. Southern Pacific R. R. … (See Rose v. State of California, supra; Bacich v. Board of Control, supra.)

Fillmore Union High School District v. Cobb

5 Cal. 2d 26 · California Supreme Court · Dec 30, 1935

Lim., p. 228; School District No. 7, etc., v. Hunnicutt, (Okl.) 51 Fed. (2d) 528; People v. Kuder, 93 Cal. … This contention is sufficiently answered by Carter v. Stevens, supra, 289-293 [ 211 Cal. 281 , 295 Pac. 28 ], and Gaylord v.

Pryor v. Municipal Court

25 Cal. 3d 238 · California Supreme Court · Sep 7, 1979

(Accord, Sanita v. Board of Police Comnrs. (1972) 27 Cal. App.3d 993, 997-998 [ 104 Cal. Rptr. 380 ].) In Gonzalez v. … Board of Education (1963) 59 Cal.2d 203, 218 [ 28 Cal. Rptr. 700 , 379 P.2d 4 ].)

Los Angeles County Flood Control District v. Wright

213 Cal. 335 · California Supreme Court · Jul 31, 1931

(Los Angeles County Flood Control Dist. v. Hamilton, 177 Cal. 119 [ 169 Pac. 1028 ].) On March 26, 1924, the board directed J. W. … (Peery v. City of Los Angeles, supra; Inglewood v. County of Los Angeles, 207 Cal. 697 [ 280 Pac. 360 ].)

Gurnsey v. Northern California Power Co.

160 Cal. 699 · California Supreme Court · Sep 8, 1911

Co. v. Allen, 113 Ind. 581 , [ 15 N. E. 446 ]; Reichert v. Railway, 51 Ark. 491 , 11 S. W. 696 , [5 L. R. A. 183]; Hanlin v. Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co., 61 Wis. 515 , [ 21 N. W. 623 ]; Kittell v. … Co. v. Southern Pacific Co., 135 Cal. 202 , [ 67 Pac. 773 ]; Southern Cal. Ry. Co. v. Slauson, 138 Cal. 344 , 94 Am. St. Rep. 58 , 71 Pac. 352 ]; Crescent Canal Co. v. Montgomery, 143 Cal. 252 , [65 L. R.

People ex rel. Mariposa County v. Counts

89 Cal. 15 · California Supreme Court · May 4, 1891

In People v. Dunn, 80 Cal. 211 , 13 Am. St. … The subscriptions and the bonds authorized by this election were held valid by the supreme court of the United States. ( County of Chicot v. Lewis, 103 U. S. 164 .) In McMahon v.

Lorenson v. City of Los Angeles

41 Cal. 2d 334 · California Supreme Court · Aug 14, 1953

As pointed out in Farrell v. … (See Benner v. Industrial Acc. Com. (1945), 26 Cal.2d 346, 349-350 [ 159 P.2d 24 ]; Tyra v. Board of Police etc. Commrs. (1948), 32 Cal.2d 666, *341 670-671 [ 197 P.2d 710 ] ; Schulstad v.

County of San Joaquin v. Budd

96 Cal. 47 · California Supreme Court · Aug 30, 1892

(Payne v. Treadwell, 16 Cal. 244 ; Marshall v. Shafter, 32 Cal. 194 .) … (Shanklin v. Gomm’rs Madison Co., 21 Ohio St. 583 .) This expresses with accuracy the powers of the board of supervisors within the several counties of this state.